Social Democrats in the Wilderness

[Admiral Yi]

or rather, if there is not moral purpose, what's the point from which you judge such a stance is "good" ?

You judge it empirically, by the number of people who have complained about having other people's choices imposed on them.

[Sheilbh]

You judge it empirically, by the number of people who have complained about having other people's choices imposed on them.

That happens in a liberal society as well - that's arguably in the nature of democracy.  Thatcher's privatisations didn't happen by universal acclaim, they happened because one party won and so they were able to enact law.

[Grallon]

...

But I'd argue that we've lost any communal story in our society, it's just become individual gratification.  A world of wankers.

...

Somebody termed it 'replacing "le gouvernement des hommes par l'administration des choses" - (the government of people by the management of things/merchandises)'.  I think it was Max Weber - I can't recall. 

That is where we're at now; everything and everyone is a commodity tradable on a virtual markeplace. 




G.

[Oexmelin]

No I think it's obvious and not terribly relevant when discussing social democracy that it opposes individual freedom of choice in the sense that it is opposed to liberalism,

That's a partial reading of the origins of liberalism, which has been historically quite concerned about fashioning society - indeed, creating the concept to oppose the State; the irony is that it created a State so strong as to render both invisible and indispensable. The very emergence of the concept of society, among liberals, needed to be thought of in moral terms (see Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments), but in moral terms that placed the individuals in relation to other individuals (rather then in relation to corps, casts, families). Now we've come to this perversion of celebrating the dissolution of relationships other than legal - and many leftists who clamour always for codes, rules and regulations are participating in the dissolution...

[Oexmelin]

or rather, if there is not moral purpose, what's the point from which you judge such a stance is "good" ?

You judge it empirically, by the number of people who have complained about having other people's choices imposed on them.

Therefore, there are no notions of justice, good or bad, other than what polls proclaim ?

[Admiral Yi]

That happens in a liberal society as well - that's arguably in the nature of democracy.  Thatcher's privatisations didn't happen by universal acclaim, they happened because one party won and so they were able to enact law.

Certainly.  It's impossible to avoid disagreements about the disposition of jointly held assets or jointly conducted activities.  What is possible though is to stop the spread of group decision making into more personal aspects of life.

[Admiral Yi]

Therefore, there are no notions of justice, good or bad, other than what polls proclaim ?

There are many notions of justice and good or bad.  I don't get your point.

[Oexmelin]

My point is this: you are faced with a contradiction.

If there is no moral content to a society, then why is favoring the individual to the detriment of any other political construction "a good thing" ? For it to be "a good thing", you need to have a society which is structured around providing and allowing things which are deemed good; or else "liberalism" becomes solely a preference - the preferences so loved by economists - which does not or should not provide any guideline for any sort of policy.

In other words, you are discrediting morals in government based on a moral position; that a government structured around individualism is a good thing.

[Sheilbh]

Certainly.  It's impossible to avoid disagreements about the disposition of jointly held assets or jointly conducted activities.  What is possible though is to stop the spread of group decision making into more personal aspects of life.

What do you mean?

From my perspective privatisation was about the disposition of 'jointly held assets' but it was also a group trying to make a point against another group (the government going out of their way to break the unions and deliberately provoking a fight) and it did affect the most personal aspects of people's lives and their communities lives.  Communities fell apart, 40-something men lost jobs that still haven't been replaced and so on.  Where is that on the line from 'jointly held assets' and the 'personal aspects of life'?

I also agree with Oex about my description of liberalism.  I'd add that the great early liberals were as utopian and moralist as anyone else.  In the UK you won't find a more moralising politician than Gladstone.  They generally believed in liberalism to a moral purpose, individual freedom of choice was not a sufficient reason for doing something.  Repealing the stamp tax on paper for example wasn't worthwhile because it would create a free popular press but because it would enable self-improvement by the working poor; inevitably, though, it did the former far more than the latter.

[Agelastus]

Broadly.  I don't think he answers the problem of local conditions.  But I think his central point about our society is correct, I think that privatisation has actually just created lots of companies that are too big to fail without delivering gains in efficiency is similarly correct.

I noted in his article that he specifically targeted railway privatisations. However, I can quite clearly remember the days of British Rail, when one or two lines got the investment and every other line had to make do with whatever was left, from second hand rolling stock to stations that had not seen any work done on them in thirty years. So I can't really agree that privatisation of the railways has been a failure.

Most of the railway "horror stories" concern one or two franchises - the rest are much more successful. And I have a certain degree of personal knowledge of this. The grandiosely named "Midland Main Line" was one of British Rail's "afterthought lines". The difference in the quality, frequency and flexibility (number of destinations directly served) of the service now is incomparably better to the bad-old-days under British Rail, and carries many more passengers. The major mistake with rail privatisation was separating responsibility for the track from responsibility for the trains, which left all the franchises hostage to the fortunes of a totally separate organisation.

Fewer franchises that actually controlled their own track would have been a much better option when this was all thought up.

[Admiral Yi]

What do you mean?

From my perspective privatisation was about the disposition of 'jointly held assets' but it was also a group trying to make a point against another group (the government going out of their way to break the unions and deliberately provoking a fight) and it did affect the most personal aspects of people's lives and their communities lives.  Communities fell apart, 40-something men lost jobs that still haven't been replaced and so on.  Where is that on the line from 'jointly held assets' and the 'personal aspects of life'?

It's all the way over at the end of the line marked jointly held assets.  If the government had told the miners they had to stop whacking off and watching footie on weekends and spend the time reading self-improving books that would have gone to the other end of the line.

[Admiral Yi]

My point is this: you are faced with a contradiction.

If there is no moral content to a society, then why is favoring the individual to the detriment of any other political construction "a good thing" ? For it to be "a good thing", you need to have a society which is structured around providing and allowing things which are deemed good; or else "liberalism" becomes solely a preference - the preferences so loved by economists - which does not or should not provide any guideline for any sort of policy.

In other words, you are discrediting morals in government based on a moral position; that a government structured around individualism is a good thing.

Gotcha.

I judge society by my personal values and hope that society reflects them as much as possible.  I think when the OP talks about a "moral purpose" the author means something different, but now that you press me on it I have to admit I'm not exactly sure it is.

[Sheilbh]

I judge society by my personal values and hope that society reflects them as much as possible.  I think when the OP talks about a "moral purpose" the author means something different, but now that you press me on it I have to admit I'm not exactly sure it is.

He talks about collective and common purpose - for example building Jerusalem - I brought in moral purpose which confused things.  Sorry.

[crazy canuck]

Dealing specifically with the privatisation vs keep public debate, I find the analysis on both sides of overly simplistic.  In this province we went through a privatisation spree over the last 20 or so years and the results are very much mixed.  There are some things that government simply does better then private actors because there are some things that will never be profitable or perhaps better put, should never be profitable.  For example prisons, the military, many infrastructure and transportation projects.

However, there are also some things that are better left to the private sector.  For example, we have had a fair amount of success making our utilities run on a private model - although still heavily regulated.

I wont go into health care atm...

[Razgovory]

Long (very) on prose and rhetoric, short on logic.

This sums up so much political writing in Britain.